I don't find anything to be terably clear in reguards to religion in general. Aside from the fact that many religions simply don't give a shit about homosexuals, I do know several deeply religious Christians who are homosexuals. Rather than foccusing on what God hates, though, they tend to focus on the more feel good aspects of loving your fellow man, and all that rubbish that liberal jew, Jesus put forth.
What do you mean by a normal marriage? If you mean one between a man and a woman, then yes, homosexuality prevents this, as it would be very psychologically damaging to have a marriage with a member of the opposite sex, which is why homosexuals seek marriage with members of the same sex.
If, however, you are trying to imply that homosexuals inherently can not have a healthy loving marriage I'd have to say that you're out of your mind. If this is your meaning, please substantiate it. Please provide me with information relating to a higher failure rate of homosexual marriages than heterosexual marriages, because I have never witnessed anything which would lead me to believe this.
Yes, homosexuals get a lot of emotional abuse (As well as physical abuse) from people. Is this a fault of their own or a fault of those other people? Are you trying to put the burden of the assaulter's wrong doings onto the victim?
Also, though this extra abuse could well lead to low self esteem in many cases, it's certainly not a guaranteed thing, look at any flamboyant homosexual and ask me if prancing around in full view of others without regard of their opinions is a sign of low self esteem. Self esteem is less of a problem then I think you'd have us believe.
I'm sorry but I find it difficult to even begin to comprehend what you're talking about here.
When someone makes love to their partner, who else should it be for but themselves? Are we supposed to screw for the good of society, or the beterment of man kind? Are we supposed to be putting on a porno show for god, and he doesn't dig the guy on guy stuff so much?
I honestly don't know how you mean this to be an anti-homosexual statement.
That's just a flat out lie. What exactly makes a homosexual more prone to dissease than a heterosexual? Where did this comment come from? A homosexual having unprotected sex has the same chance of catching something from a partner as a heterosexual does, and the same goes for when protection is used.
If sheer numbers are at the core of your argument, then I'd remind you that there are far more heterosexuals who have STDs, and AIDS in particular than there are homosexuals (well ok, maybe that is a little off if you feel that Africa doesn't count. . . and really why would they, bunch of dark godless heathens over there anyway, aren't they?)
The law doesn't effect you one way or another. You can carry on feeling that a homosexual marriage isn't right, or somehow cosmicaly invalid if you want to. The only way you'd have to recognize it is if you were a judge or a lawyer, no one is going to fine you or throw you in jail for saying that you don't think homosexual marriages are valid.
How will it harm these groups? Please be more specific.
That's what your ancient tomb of arcane knowledge may claim, but the United States was not founded by degenerate mystics, and we do not live in a theocrasy. Your religious reasons are, when applied to legal situations, are impotent.
It's more about the principal of the thing. It's about giving what is due, and doing the right thing.
Webster is less an authority in law than are actual legal bodies, and acts which have been passed. If America were to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, for instance, then perhaps Webster would change it's definition to reflect the reality of the new situation. Linguistics can be a bitch like that.
More preferably, harm can be defined as any action which forces the child to not think rationally and/or allow them to not make choices.